The Sunday Oregonian., September 27, 1908, SECTION FOUR, Page 5, Image 39

UNITED STATES SENATOR FULTON
FOLLOWING Is the full text of
United States "Senator Fulton's
. speech at the 'Mllwauki Grange
Fair yesterday: - '
Ladies and Gentiemen: We are again
entering- upon a creat political campaign
that ts to decide what political party and
policies shall to id and obtain in the ad
ministration of the affairs of this Nation
during- the coming four years. We hear it
' re.uently urged by our political opponents
that there exist no real, substantial differ
ences at this time between the Republican
and Democratic partiea. Well. If that be
true, which of course It Is not. It affords
no argument for support of the Democratic
' party, for if there be no differences at this
time between these two great parties, it is
because :the "Democratic party has aban
doned as untenable all Us former theories
and doctrines and has accepted as sound
and wise the principles and policies of the
Republican party.
The Republican party Is certainly now. as
ever, and as Intensely now as ever, opposed
to the Democratic doctrine of free and un
limited coinage of silver. The Republican
prty 1b just as firmly as ever lr favor ol
the single gold standard. Has the Demo
cratic party abandoned the one or em
braced the other? Does th selection of
Mr. Bryan as its candidate for the Presi
dency Justify such an inference?
he has within the last few weeks stated that
be was right In 18i and In the same cir
cumstance would again advocate free coin
age of silver at 16 to 1.
The Republican party still stands ror tne
doctrine that our tariff laws must be
framed with a view not only to provide a
sufficient revenue but as well with a view
to the protection of American product and
American labor. Does the Democratic party
agree to that? The Republican party still
contends that It is the duty of this Nation
to retain the Philippine Islands, at least
until their inhabitants ar fully capable
of 'self-sovernment, and that we have the
constitutional right so to do, and It Is op
posed to any declaration at this time of an
intention to abandon them at any time or
under any conditions. Is that also the
jUtttnde of the Democratic party?
The Republican party still adheres to the
doctrine that this is a Nation and cot a
mere federation of sovereign. Independent
I a tea; that the Federal Constitution is the
supreme law of the land, vesting In the
National Government all powers necessary
to an- Independent and sovereign Nation
end that it Is not to be crippled or hampered
In the exercise of such, powers by a narrow
or strict construction. Is the. Democratic
party now willing to accept that doctrine
In the. full and complete aenao for which
the Republican party contends? Its record
proves that It is not. But even If It be
true that the Democrats have abandoned
all their former contentions, conceding that
they mere erroneous and unsound, does it
furnish -a sufficient . or- Indeed any reason
why the party that has always been right
should be deprived of political power and
the administration - of government confined
to those who heretofore have confessedly
always been wrong? Further. If there is to
be no change In policies, why should we be
subjected to the disturbances that will
necessarily accompany and follow a change
of party in the administration?
Party Conflict Irreconcilable.
The truth is that the Republican end
Democratic parties must ever differ in some
esntial particulars, for they represent two
distinct political schools. As men differ
temperamentally their lines of thought are
Ifkety to diverge and their conclusions be
either widely dissimilar or entirely antagon
istic. Political partiea are composed of
men who In the main think along the same
iinea They may not agree in all things
political many may not accept as entirely
tounil every policy their party advocates,
but the general disposition, attitude, course
and character of the party, the atmosphere
In which it moves. Its logical trend, more
nearly conform to their views and convic
tions, and promise so to do In the future
in dealing with problems as they arise, than
any other existing organisation.
Since the formation of this Government
there have been two great schools of po
litical thought, namely, the school of Ham
ilton and the school of Jefferson. The
Republican party Is the successor of those
who. at the beginning adopted the views
of Hamilton. They contended that by the
adoption of the Consttiution a new, Inde
pendent, sovereign Nation was created; that
this Nation possessed all the powers neces
sary, to its preservation aud that it could
rightfully enforce the powers delegated to
it. by force of arms if necessary. On the
other hand the Jefforsonlan srhool con
tended that the Federal Union was but an
saoclatlon of Independent, sovereign slates,
no oce of which could be constitutionally
coerced Into observing or complying with
any law or ordinance which It deemed un
just or unwise. They advocated the doctrine
of strict construction in interpreting the
roii-tKution. for which rule the Democratic
party contends today, while their opponents,
they of the school of Hamilton, have con
tended for a more liberal rule of construc
tion and. furthermore, that the National
Oovernment possesses certain inherent
powers by virtue of its sovereignty and that
In addition to the expressly delegated powers
it .possesses under the Constitution many
necessarily implied powers. Ail of which
the school of Jefferson has ever denied.
This fundamental difference between the
' two great parties has continued from the
adoption of the Constitution down to the
present tlm. It Is douMless true that to
the efforts of Hamilton more than to those
of any other person are we Indebted for the
final adoption of the Constitution and to his
teachings that It Is now recognized as bearing-
the broad stamp of nationality. He it
was who first advanced and defended the
now-accerted doctrine of Implied powers
in .the Constitution. TTnder this doctrine
and by virtue of it only have the vast
appropriations from time to time been made
for internal Improvements, the Improvement
of our rivers and harbora It is under this
doctrine that tha great principle of protec
tion of American industries and American
labor finds warrant. It in this doctrine we
have Invoked in enacting the anti-trust legis
lation, the railway rate legislation and the
legislation providing for the construction of
the Panama Canal. Yet that doctrine has
been uniformly and continuously assailed
and combated by the followers of Jeffer
son since its birth.
Jefferson himself always denied the con
stitutionality of appropriations for internal
Improvements and A ndrew Jackson in his
first message condemned as unconstitutional
such legislation and in 10 In a veto mes
sage argued at great length against the ex
istence in Congress of such power umler
the Constitution. And. as 1 shall phow later
on, even after Chief Justice Marshall had
hy Innumerable luminous opinions upheld
the doctrine of implied powers as contended
for by Hamilton, yes after the Clii War
had at the expense of millions of lives,
rivers of blood and countless billions of
property determined in favor of the school
of Hamilton, the principal question in issue,
the nationality of the Federal I'nlon, a
Democratic administration held the bhorman
anti-trust law to be void on the ground that
no constitutional warrant existed for Its
enactment. Yet a Republican administra
tion enforced that law, the courts have
pronounced tt constitutional and sustained
judgment and decrees under it. Indeed It
was under that law that the first great
cae which sounded the death knell of
vicious trusts the Northern Pecuriaee case
was prosecuted and sustained.
Hence I say. that the Republican party
as an organisation, is one which will ever
appeal to men of one bent of mind, while
the Democratic party will as regularly ap
peal to tbosa of an opposite cast of mind.
Men of a practical turn of mind will, as
a rule, align themselves with the Republi
can party, for it Is a party of practical
Ideas- It believes In doing things and It
always finds the means of doing what it
deems necessary to the public welfare.
The Democratic party Is an association
of Impractical. In construing the Consti
tution it can discover no governmental
powers except those specifically named, con
stantly overlooking and blind to the fact
that by the Constitution a Nation was cre
ated and that to establish a Nation means
much in constitutional taw. It Implies that
the Government is endowed with the power
of self-preservation, and that It was de
signed to exercise control and governmental
powers In all matters of general Interest and
concern, or. as Hamilton said, "whatever
concerns the general Interest of learning, of
agriculture, of manufactures and of com
merce is within the sphere of the National
concerns. Then the Democratic party Is,
by reason of Its Impractical character, given
to the support of wild and visionary the
ories. Witness its demand for the payment
of Government obligations in greenbacks and
later its adoption of the free silver fallacy.
Its next cry will be for government owner
ship of railroads and transportation linea
Its tendency has always been to paternalism.
Inconsistent though tt be with its doctrines
of strict construction of the Constitution.
But. as stated, it ts the party of Imprac
ticals. Of course environment and early
esociatlons exert a powerful Influence In
forming a man's political views and par
ticularly In determining his early political
alignment. . Bueh influences eliminated or
outgrewn, certain Intellects will always
naturally be attracted to the Democratic
ranks.' others tor the Republican ranks, for
these parties represent two distinct schools
of thought, one the practical, the other the
Impractical and visionary. Fortunately for
the Republican party and the Nation the
majority of the American people la of a
practical bent of mind. So. even If It be
true- that there is no matter of real concern
at (Issue between the two partiea today, a
wide difference In matters of grave concern
may arise any day, and the question is,
judging each party by Its history and Its
tendency, to which do you prefer entrusting
the task of solving and dealing, with prob
lems of grave importance that may arise
during the coming four years?
It is my conviction that practical men
will believe that It Is the part of wisdom
to entrust the administration of government
to that party which has always been right,
that has never abandoned a position it has
taken or repudiated a policy or a doctrine
It has advocated, rather than to that party
which has always been wroi.g on every
great Issue in the past, but whoso plea for
recognition at present Is based on the asser
tion that it has. abandoned all Its old the
ories and fallacies.
Great Issue Between Parties.
But It !s not true, as I shall show before
I conclude that there Is no substantial
difference today between the two great par
ties on questions of deep National concern.
I am now simply attempting to emphasize
the fact that even If there existed at this
particular time no such differences, It is
because" the Democrats have abandoned all
their former contentions and opposition to
Republican policies, which ought not to
afford a very satisfactory reason for en
trusting the Government to Democratic con
trol. If Republican policies as to the money
standard, our financial system, the control
of trusts, the tariff, the regulation of trans
portation linea ths retention and govern
ment of our Insular possessions, the con
struction of the Panama Caual, are to be
fojlowed and adhered to. will It not appeal
to most men as the part of wisdom to en
trust that work to the original author and
unfaltering friend of those policies?
Some will tell you. "Oh, It mates no dif
ference what party is In power, times will
be just the same. Neither prosperity nor
poverty, good times or bad. depend on leg
islation." If that be true, then there ex
ists no reason for a change certainly. But
It Is not entiiely true. I myself do not
believe In paternalism. All 1 believe the
Government should do is to provide a sound
currency and so provide by legislation that
our own people shall do our own work; that
our own producers shall have the advantage
in 'our own .markets; . that every citizen
shall be equal before the law, . equal in
rights, equal in opportunity. These being
assured, every man la as he should be. de
pendent upon MS own Industry and respon
sible for his failure or success. I take It
also that there can be no higher or more
satisfactory proof of the v-iwiom and sound
ness of political policies than that afforded
by actual practice attended by success.
It is not so long since 1892 but that mort
voters of today remember how earnestly
Republican statesmen warned the people
what the result would be should they aban
don the Republican policies and turn the
Government over to the Democrats. But
the people did not heed the warning. Ynu
know the result. You remember how the
very moment Democratic success and Dem
ocratic policies were assured, business,, in
dustrial and commercial, paralysis came.
Indeed it not only came, but It remained
throughout the entire four years of Demo
cratic administration. The black cloud of
business depression did net lift, did not be
gin to lift, until the election of 186 had
assured the return of Republican policies.
Do you remember the Issue in lb2, the
determination of which In favor of the
Democratic party brought on the terrible
industrial and commercial stagnation that
followed? It was the tariff, nothing more.
The Democratic party from every plat
form throughout the country denounced the
protective tariff as a robbr and promised
to do away with it if clothed with power.
The country was then enjoying as high a
tide of prosperity as It Is blessed with to
day, but the people listened to the Demo
cratic cry' for "tariff reform" and "down
with protection."
Tou all know the result.' As I have
stated, wa were then enjoying a splendid
prosperity. The factories and shops were
open, the hum of Industry was heard on
every hand and employment was seeking
the man. How quickly all this wa changed
most of you will remember. Realization
that-the Republican protective policy "was
to be supplanted by Democratic free trade
or Its Industrial equivalent, a tariff for
revenue only spread throughout the land
and prosperity fled. It hushed the hum of
Industry and opened the mouth of famine;
It closed down the factories and opened
the soup-houses. Three million men were
thrown out of employment. Not by an In
junction, not at all. No talk about antl
Injunetlon planks those days. What was
wanted then was work in order that bread
might be bad, but work there was not, and
hence the soup-house. For four long years
a tyribte depression prevailed. The col
umns of the daily press were filled with
accounts of failing banks and business
houses, of ruined homes and blighted Uvea
Birth of Bryanism.
Then came the election of 1S96. Indeed
the people could hardly wait for It, though
In truth they had little else to do. Then
It was that Bryan and Bryanism secured
control of the Democratic party. Mr. Cleve
land was repudiated and Mr. Bryan was
placed in command. He came forward as
a prophet. He told trie people that but one
thing could or would restore prosperity and
that was the free and unlimited coinage of
silver at Id to 1. He further assured the
people ttfat so long as the gold standard
should be continued the severe commercial
and Industrial depression then prevailing
would become steadily deeper and darker
until dire disaster would envelop the land
and we would all go .down to a common
ruin. Well, the people did not. believe Mr.
Bryan, fortunately. They felt that could
they have Republican policies restored all
would be well, so they voted the Republi
can ticket, for they believed with the Re
publican party that the gold standard and
protection meant plenty and prosperity.
And what a splendid, matchless prosperity
It was that came! And yet the Republican
party did exactly everything that Bryan
said must not be done and it declined to
do aught that he said must be done. -Campaign
of 1900.
In 1900 Mr. Bryan was again the can
didate of his party. He no longer advocated
free silver; no longer denounced the gold
standard, not. he said, because his views
had changed, but because he had dtscovered
a paramount issue, namely, "Imperialism.'"
Now I ask you to tell me frankly If you
believe Mr. Bryan was honest In that con
tention? I do not so believe, and that Is
one of the charges I bring against Mr.
Bryan, namely, that he Is wanting in men
tal integrity. He had discovered that the
free silver doctrine he bad advocated so
strongly in 189 was unsound. He knew,
for experience had proven that his assault
on the gold standard was a mistake. He
realized that the Republican policies of
sound money and a protective tariff had
brourht to our country the most splendid
prosperity any people had ever experienced.
He knew he must select another issue, so
he took up the cry of Imperialism. And
here I ask, was Mr. Bryan honest in taking
up that csy? Let his own record answer.
At the close of the Spanish-American
War this country entered Into a treaty with
Spain whereby we agreed to annex the
Philippine Islands and pay Spain $20,000.
000 therefor. To make the treaty valid It
was necessary that the United States Sen
ate should ratify It and it takes a two
thirds vote to ratify a treaty. The Re
publicans did not have two-thirds of the
Senate, hence it required Democratic votes
to ratify it. Mr. Bryan went to Washing
ton City and urged the Democrats to vote
to ratify, and as a result 17 Democrats
voted for ratification and yet It was carried
by but three votea But the treaty was
ratified and the $20,000.00 paid to Spain.
Shortly thereafter came on the campaign
of 1900 and Mr. Bryan, as I have stated,
selected for his paramount issue, "im
perialism." He asserted that the acquisition
of the islands was in violation of the Con
stitution and that therefore we acquired no
title by the treaty. But in addition to that
he asserted "that Spain never owned the
islands and hence could not sell them, so
In no view had we any title to them, hence
could not attempt longer to hold them.
Now what would you think of a lawyer who
should advise you to purchase a tract of
land, should advise acceptance of the deed
and payment of the money and then there
after calmly tell you that you had no au
thority to purchase and the grantor had
no title to convey? Would you not pro
nounce him a fraud and a shyster? Do
you think Mr. Bryan was honest with the
people in his 1900 campaign? Was he
honest and frank -with them In his 1S93
campaign? If his contentions were sound
then they are today. Why does he not
contend for the same doctrines today? Has
he changed his views or Is he fearful of
the result?! If be has changed his views
why has he not the courage to say so. If
he still believes In those doctrines why
does he not come forward and contend
for them?
Government Ownership.
a, further proof thst Mr. Bryan Is de
ficient In mental integrity I offer this ad
ditional evidence. You will all remember
that when Mr. Bryan returned from his
trip around the world a short time ago he
was given a great reception In New York
and it was arranged in advance that he
should deliver a speech which would sound
the keynote for -his 1903 campaign for the
Presidency The speech was prepared with
great care, and In order that he might not
be misquoted, and further that he might
say exactly what he wished to eey and all
he wished to say, Mr. Bryan read It. He
came out. strongly for Government owner
ship of railway lines. That was the key
note of.- the speech. --
A great protest went up In the ranks of
his party. The Southern Democrats .con
tended that such a policy would be In con
flict with their doctrine of states rights.
Mr. Bryan then came out In an interview.
In which he most accommodatingly mod
ified his previous demands and r Insisted
only that .the Federal Government should
acquire Interstate roads. But his .Southern
followers refused to accept even his mod
ified doctrine, and thereupon Mr. Bryan
abandoned Government ownership entirely;
at least he ceased to advocate (t. for bs
saw it might defeat him for the nomination.
Now, I ask, was Mr. Bryan honest in his
advocacy o fGovernment ownership? If he
was, was it honest or manly of him to
abandon it simply to secure a nomination
to office? Is it of such material that the
American people would have their Presi
dents made?
Th Great Retreater.
Mr. Bryan stands today as the great re
treater In American politic There Is not
a principle or a policy for which ha has
stood in the past that he stands for today,
except this, that he is now, as ever, a can
didate for the Presidency. He has aban
doned free silver, he has acbepted the gold
standard. At least he does not "now ad
vocate the one or combat the other. He
Is silent on imperialism and would have it
forgotten that he ever advocated Gov
ernment ownership. Will the American peo
ple elect this chief 'of opportunists to the
Presidency of this republic?
Trusts and Trust Legislation.
Mr. Bryan charges the Republican party
with fostering trusts, and yet he knows
that every, line of legislation now on the
statute books condemning trusts and pro
viding for their -suppression was enacted
by Republicans. The Sherman anti-trust
law. enacted In 1990. condemns and makes
Illegal every contract, combination in
the form of a trust or otherwise, or con
spiracy la restraint of trade or commerce"
among the states or with rorelgn nations.
This was In 190. and In 1892 you know
the Democratic party elected the President
and a majority of the House of Repre
sentatives. Did this Democratic adminis
tration - either seek to enforce this law or
to enact another? Not at all. On the con
trary the Democratic Attorney-General, Mr.
Olney, held the Sherman law to be uncon
stitutional and declined to enforce it or
to take any proceedings under it. There
upon, In June. 1900. the Republican mem
bers of Con gress brought forward a reso
lution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution, empowering Congress to sup
press trusts snd combinations In restraint
of trade. Every Republican member voted
for the resolution and every Democrat excepting-
five- voted -against It. They con
tended that It was an unwise Interference
with state rights, and so the resolution
failed, for to propose an amendment to the
Constitution requires tha concurrence of
two-thirds of those voting.
And this again Illustrates the funda
mental difference between Republican and
Democratic doctrines. The Democratic Attorney-General,
in accord with the Demo
cratic contention for a strict construction
and limitation of the powers of Congress
under the Constitution, held the Sherman
Jaw void, "as no provision of the Consti
tution expressly warranted its enactment.
The Democratlc'members of Congress, when
it was proposed to so amend the Consti
tution as to clearTy grant the power, voted
against it because they held It to be an
invasion of the reserved rights of the
states. But the Republicans always In
sisted that the Sherman law was valid
and when William McKlnley became Presi
dent prosecutions under the. law- were
brought and its validity sustained. The
most important of- those cases, the North
ern Securities case, strikingly Illustrates
the difference I have suggested between the
Democratic and the Republican schools of
political snd constitutional construction.
The case was thi The Northern Se
curities Company was formed for the pur
pose of acquiring a majority of the stock
of the Great Northern and Northern Pa
cific Railway companies. These railway
companies already owned jointly a majority
of the stock of the Chicago. Burlington &
Quincy Railroad. The Securities Company
was formed by officials of the Great North
ern and Northern Pacific and having had
assigned to it a majority -of the stock of
each of those two companies, thereby con
trolled absolutely three competing transpor
tation lines engaged In interstate commerce.
It was a clear -case of conspiracy to de
stroy competition and to advance prices for
transportation. A suit was ferought by the
United States to restrain the Securities
Company from exercising such control and
to dissolve It as an illegal corporation. The
case went to the United States Supreme
Court and there the railroads contended
that Congress hsd no power to enact a law
prohibiting a person or corporation from
acquiring and- holding stock in a company
organized under a state law, whatever
might be 'its purpose, and hence that the
suit could not -be sustained. The Supreme
Court, by a majority of one. upheld the Gov
ernment's contentions held that the Sher
man antl-truet law applied and that Con
gress had power to enact such legislation.
But I wish you to observe that this de
cision was concurred In by Republican
judges only. Kvery Democratic judge on
the bench dissented, holding that Con
gress had no power under the constitution
to suppress such a combination. ' Here
again we see the influence and effect of 'he
Jefferson Ian doctrine of strfrct construction
of the Constitution. Had not the Republi
can doctrine of implied powers been invoked
and sustained Congress would have been
held to be wholly without authority to sup
press the vicious trusts and combinations In
restraint of trade.
A mighty victory for the people was this
decision. The Philadelphia Press estimated
at the time that it wrought a saving of
over $150,000,000 a year to the shippers
of this country. This was due to a Re
publican measure, enforced by a Republi
can administration and sustained by Re
publican Judges. Now I do not wish to
be understood as reflecting In any degree
on the Democratic justices who recorded
their dissent to the decision in that case.
They were perfectly sincere In the posi
tion they took. I only refer to their atti
tude for the purpose of showing how im
portant It is that men shall be elected to
important offices whose political views and
mental trend are In accord with that school
of thought, the policies of which all ex
perience has demonstrated to be necessary
to the wisest administration of our Gov
ernment. Trusts and Protective Tariff.
Now I want to talk to you a few minutes
about Mr. Bryan's contention that the pro
tective tralff breeds trusts. Mr. Bryan Is
just as correct in this contention as he Is
or was In his position on the silver ques
tion, or t.T put It more directly, he is just
as greatly in error in this contention as
he was in the other. We do not have to
rely on theory or arguments to prove this
assertion, for facts are In evidence. Free
trade England is the home of trusts, and
Indeed throughout Europe trusts are far
more prevalent than here because they have
not been legislated against there as dras
tically as here. Again the combinations or
trusts most widely inveighed against in
this country are the Standard Oil and the
anthracite coal trusta The product of
neither is subjected to any duty whatever,
hence It cannot be contended that the
tariff contributes In any manner to their ex
ist nee.
But, It Is said, our manufacturers are
selling articles abroad for a less price than
they demand for the same articles here. In
Isolated cases this Is true, but It is not due
to the tralff- There is not an exporting
country in the world whose merchants and
manufacturers do not at times do the same
thing. Our Consular reports show that
many English manufacturers have one price
for the foreign trade and another and
higher one for their domestic trade. You
can readily see that it may frequently oc
cur that an American manufacturer may
find it to his advantage to sell a portion of
his product In a foreign market at cost.
The home market la of course, his prin
cipal market, but It will happen occasionally
that he has no pending orders for that
market. He cannot afford to disband his
working force if possible to avoid so do
In g when orders come In from his cus
tomers he must be ready to supply them,
hence must keep his force together; be
sides to shut down his factory and later
start up again would not only impose a
serious loss on him but a grest hardship
on his employes. He cannot afford to put
his product on the home market at cost
DISCUSSES ISSUES OF PRESIDENTIAL
for that would be an injustice to those
who have purchased their stock from him
at a profit to him and should he do so they
certainly would never purchase of him
again. Still he can much better afford to
run h Is factory a few months at actual
cost or possibly at a slight loss than close
it down. He. therefore, resorts to the ex
pedient of shipping the surplus product into
a foreign market and selling It at cost or
at less than a reasonable profit.
Or, we will take a case where a factory
is seeking to introduce Its product in a
foreign market. In order to do bo it may
sacrifice profit for a time. No one pretends
that any American manufacturer as a rule
sells abroad for a less price than at home,
and investigation has disclosed that the ag
gregate of sales abroad at less than the
regular home market pricey Is, compared
with our total exports of manufactures,
infinlteetlmally small. It also appears that
by far the most considerable portion of ex
ports so sold is of products manufactured
in -whole or in part from imported raw
material on which a drawback of the im
port duty is allowed when shipped foreign.
. Republican Prosperity.
It seems incredible that any considerable
sentiment should exist for a change from
Republican rule when the marvelous devel
opment and growth of our commerce and
Industries under its policies are considered.
Under those policies we have become and
are today the foremost Nation of the world
In power. Influence and wealth. In every
branch of trade and industry our people are
the most prosperous on earth. We are the
greatest manufacturing Nation of . the
world: the greatest in agriculture,- the
greatest In commerce. Nothing more clearly
indicates our lead In the manufacturing
world than our output of pig Iron; we are
now producing fully 60 per cent of the
world's annual product. Think of that, more
than any other three nations of the world.
Our Internal commerce exceeds in both
volume and value the entire foreign com
merce of . all the other nations of the
world. Our exports exceed those of any
other nation,' last year aggregating approx
imately the enormous sum of $2,000,000,000.
and our excess of exports over imports ex
ceeding $500,000,000.
Our laboring men receive higher wages
by Xrom oO to 100 per cent than are paid
in any other country. Is It not a wonderful
and pleasing fast that we are the greatest
manufacturing Nation of the world and yet
we pay the highest wages of any country
in the world? Marvelous Indeed, but true.
All this has been brought about under Re
publican policies. It Is not necessary to
contend that It is due entirely to such
policies. It Is sufficient to show that it came
under them In order to prove that they
provide the best possible conditions for the
development of our Industries and the
highest possible degree of prosperity.
And this great prosperity is not confined
to any one branch of industry hut extends
equally to all to the farmer, the merchant,
the laborer, the banker, the manufacturer.
Now- why should we abandon these policies?
Why. for instance, abandon the protective
policy? Have not all prospered under it as
no other people under any system ever
prospered In -all the world's history? Do
you not know that every time we have
abandoned It. disaster and distress have en
sued and that every time we have returned
to it prosperity and happiness have quickly
come in their stead? Of course you know
all that. M .
Then who is demanding the abandonment
of this principle? Is rt the farmer? Surely
not. for no class Is jnore prosperous. It
provides him the best market in the worm
for his products our home market, whicn
now absorbs over 02 per cent of his prod
ucts Does he think the tariff on hides and
cattle creates the "beef trust"? Does he
deem the tariff oh wool a menace to h s
flocks? No he is not so easily deluded. Is it
the merchant? He desires no change that
will by any possibility abate the prosperity
attending our industrial life. Is It the labor
ing men then who demand abandonment of
the protective policy? It does not seem
possible, for above all otherse they are
benefited by It, They demand, properly, that
we exclude from our shares the cheap labor
of -China and contract laborers from Europe,
will they demand that we open our markets
to the products of such labor on equal
terms with the products of their labor? It
Is Inconceivable.
The Injunction Question.
Right here I wish to say a word about
'injunctions. For some years Mr. Bryan and
Mr GompeTS have been industriously en
deavoring to instill into the minds of the
laboring men the belief that the courts of
the country have been violating their rights
by issuing writs of injunction in cases aris
ing out of disputes between employers and
employes. They have characterized the
practice as "government by Injunction. It
Is possible, of course, that injustice may
have been done employes in some cases, as
injustice may occur in any case, for abso
lute justice is not possible In all cases under
any system of laws that can b devised by
men: but that any considerable injustice
has been done in any case or that any con
siderable number of cases nave occurred
where any injustice was wrought by the
use of the writ does not appear from an
Inspection of the records and seems most
Improbable. When men are worked up to
a high state of excitement it is easy for
them to believe and easier still for others
to make them believn that any Interference
by the courts with their proceedings, is an
ln3NowCan inspection of the records of cases
tried before the Federal Courts during the
last five years shows that but 328 writs of
injunction were Issued in all classes of cases
and of these but 20 were in labor cases. Of
these 20 cases. In only 1 was the writ or
restraining order issued without notice, be
ing 8 cases per annum, and in each of sucn
cases a showing by affidavits was made
that an emergency which would not permit
of the delay necessary to giving notice
existed. In none of these cases does it
appear from the record that an injustice
or injury was. done.
Mr Gomper went before the platform
committee of the Republican National con
vention and sought to secure the insertion
of a plank condemning the issuance of in
junctions in labor cases. Of course he
failed No political party of any character
could afford to stand for such a Proposi
tion Civil government Is organized ana
Instituted for the protection ot life and
property and the rights of its Individual
members. Experience has dmo"8tra
that some tribunal must be made the final
arbiter of all disputes involving such rights
and interests. For that purpose we have
established courts. To deprive the courts
of the power effectively to protect such
rights and interests would operate to Im
pel one party or the other to resort to force
and that Is tbe beginning of anarchy.
The writ of injunction is one of the
oldest writs known to the common law from
whence it came to us. Indeed it was known
to the civil law prior to the birth of com
mon law. Its use In labor disputes is by
no means an innovation but is in strict ac
cord with Its history and purpose. The
Republican convention, however, adopted a
Plank condemning the Issuance of the writ
without notice except in cases of emerg
ency and declared that In such cases an
earlv hearing should be accorded the party
enjoined. What more could be asked ?
What more dared the Democratic party do?
Nothing. Even Mr. Bryan did not insist
on going further, buttrue to his character
as an opportunist he secured the adoption
of the following:
"We deem that parties to all judicial pro
ceedings should be treated with rigid im
partiality, and that Injunctions should not
isMje in any case In which Injunctions would
not Issue If no industrial dispute were in
volved." , - .
Nobcdy knows what It means. No in
junction was ever Issued In any case simply
because an industrial dispute was Involved.
The injunctions were issued because it was
alleged that an injury to property or per
sonal rights was threatened, not because
of the character of the- dispute. But Mr.
Gompers is a Democrat and is determined
on supporting Mr. Bryan in any event. He
Is now trying to lead the union labor vo
Into the Bryan ranks on the false conten
tion that the Bryan platform declares
against injunctions tn industrial disputes,
when he well knows it does not.
No n.an has higher respect for those who
labor with their hands than I have. I was
brought up to manual labor and have
worked all mj life. I believe in labor
unions and In . their being protected abso
lutely In the enjoyment of their just rights.
I believe laborers have the right to quit
work In a body, pursuant to a previous
agreement and to Induce others to refrain
from taking their places by pleadings and
arguments if they can. but they may not
employ threats or resort to violence. No
honest laboring man will contend for more.
That Is the position of Mr. Taft and the
Republican party. Now the laboring peo
ple know what the Republican party has
done for them, what It has done to elevate
and dignify American labor. They know
that the Republican party has throughout
its entire nistory been the friend of labor.
Its first mission was to break the shackles
of slavery and set the bondsmen free. It
has been and Is the champion of the doc
trine of protection- for American wage earn
ers by refusing to allow the products of
thir toil to be forced into ruinous com
petition with the products of cheap labor
elsewhere. It was said long ages ago- and
It is as true today as when first uttered:
"By their fruits ye shall know them." and
I say to our laboring people, be not de
ceived, by deeds, not by words, your friends
are to be proven.
What has the Democratic party erer done
for the worklngraen? I challenge any per-
son to designate a single instance of legis- !
latton by It In their interest. In 1892 the ;
Democratic party in its National platfo-.m
pledged itself to enact an employers liabil
ity bill extending and more definitely defin-
lng the liability of employers in interstate j
transportation to their employes. It sue- j
ceeded in electing a President and both !
houses of Congress. Did It enact any such '
law? Certainly not. Why? Simply because j
the Democratic party Is under the domina- :
tlon of the South and the ruling class in
the Southern States has no sympathy with i
labor. Then the Republican party was re- ,
turned to power and what did it do? It
enacted th employers liability law; the
law making eight hours a day's labor on
all Government works; the law limiting
the number of hours consecutively that
railway engineers may be required to work;
th-s Chinese exclusion laws ; th law pro
hibiting the Importation of contract labor;
the laws prohibiting the employment of
convict labor; .laws for the protection of
seamen; the laws compelling the use on
Interstate roads of automatic couplers and
automatic ash-pans ; laws creating boards
of arbitration to settle labor disputes; a
law authorizing the incorporation of Inter
national trade unions; the law creating the
Industrial commission; the law- abrogating
the fellow servant rule; and numerous other
statutes all directly In the interest of labor.
Why has the Republican rather than the
Democratic party enacted such legislation?
I will tell you. The strength of the Re
publican party Is in the Northern , States
and Its Representatives and Senators in
Congress come from those states. In those
states the rights and dignity of labor have
always been honored and respected. Few
men In the North have attained eminence
in trade, commerce, professional or publlo
life t'who have not worked their way up
from tha ranks of labor on the farm, in
tbe shop or the office. They are consee
quently in sympathy with those who labor.
In the Southern States, where the strength
of the Democratic party Is. the situation
la entirely different. The laborer there Is
the negro, for whom the Southern whites
has neither sympathy nor respect. They
have, when he confines himself to what
they deem to be his station, a certain af
fection for him, such as we have for our
horse or our dog nothing more.
Is It to be exoected that a party which
Is under the domination of such a class
will ever be truly just to or considerate of
the rights of laboring people of the North
and West? Will the laboring people Assert
a party that has done so much for them as
has the Republican party? Are they will
ing to confide their fortunes to the Demo
cratic statesmen of the South- who have
no personal knowledge of the labor prob
lems of the North and West and are wholly
devoid of sympathy with laborers In their
efforts to. improve their conditions? By
supporting the Democratic party they will
be aiding the effort to bring about just that
situation, for should the Democrats suc
ceed, the merrthers of Congress from the
South will always control every Demo
cratic caucus and thereby dictate the policy
of the party.
In all earnestness I warn union labor not
to bs d eluded Into abandoning its best
friend, the Republican party. Organized
labor has made wonderful progress in se
curing friendly legislation In recent years,
all through the Republican party, because
Northern communities are Republtcan in
sentiment and In sympathy with every ef
fort to Improve and dignify labor. Do not.
I warn you, alienate that sentiment and
sympathy. Do not sacrifice your Inheri
tance for a mess of miserable pottage. That
you will not I am confident for you are too
Intelligent to be so grossly deceived.
Jury Trial in Contempt Cases.
Mr. Bryan demands that the existing
law be so amended as to provide for a Jury
trial in all cases where a person is charged
with contempt of court, not committed in
the immediate presence of the court. Since
Mr. Bryan came upon the public stage
he has been singularly unfortunate In the
unwisdom of the several policies he has
espoused. Some Indeed have been positively
vicious, but none has promised so rich a
harvest of evil and disaster, if carried Into
legislation, as this one does. It would
destroy the integrity and finality of ju
dicial decrees utterly. It is, of course, im
portant In the administration of the law
that justice shall be done. It is also im
portant that Judicial decrees shall be final
and that .there shall be an end to litiga
tion; that when a final decree shall be
entered all parties shall be compelled to
accept It as a complete determination of
all matters In controversy. This Is neces-
sarv to the peace and good order of so
ciety. It will be hoped always that a judg
ment or decree Is just and right. Exact
and complete Justice in every case cannot,
of course, be expected; but the policy of
the law should be to require absolute com
pliance with and acquiescence In all or
ders, judgments and decrees of our courts
unless set aside or reversed on appeal. The
highest considerations of public policy de
mand this. Mr. Bryan's proposal would
destroy the very foundation of our whole
judicial svstem by eliminating from judicial
decrees the essential element of-finality.
Suppose, for Instance, that A institutes
a suit against B, alleging that B holds
In trust for him certain bonds deposited
with him for a specified purpose which has
expired or been satisfied and the bonds
should have been returned to him, but that
B still retains them and has collected a
large amount of interest which has accrued
from time to time, and now claims to be
the owner of the bonds and is trying to
and will sell them unless restrained by the
court. A then asks that B be required to
account for the interest and be enjoined
from selling or transferring the bonds.
An injunction issues and on final hearing
the court sustains As contentions and
orders B to bring the bonds into court to
be delivered to A. That, I think you will
agree, should be a final determination of
the controversy unless B appeals. Suppose
he does not appeal but refuses to deliver
up the bonds, or If you prefer, suppose he
does appeal and ' the higher court affirms
the decree and B still refuses to deliver
up the bonds and is cited to show cause
why he should not be punished as for a
contempt. .
Now he Is clearly guilty of contempt,
nor is he in contempt because of any act
committed in the presence of the court,
hence under Mr. Bryan's plan he is to be
entitled to demand a jury trial. Then is
the case to be tried over again and Is the
Jury to determine whether or not B should,
after all. surrender the bonds? No. you
will say. the Jury will simply decide
whether or not he has delivered the bonds.
Theoretically that may be, but we all know
how prone juries are to ignore the real
issue and decide a case according to what
they deem the equities of the case to be
and hence they are as likely as not to annul
the court's dcree and find B not guilty
How then Is the decree to be enforced?
What degree of finality would attach to a
final decree of a court under such a sys-
Or suppose the suit involved the title
to real property and the court should
finally award the property to A and enjoin
B from molesting him In the enjoyment of
it, but in violation of the decree B should
seek to regain possession by force or de
ceit and is cited to answer for contempt of
court Is the question of title to be again
litigated before a Jury? Again, In either
of the assumed cases, is the court or a
jury the better quslifled to interpret the
decree the court itself has rendered and
to determine whether or not B has violated
the court's order? Is it not manifest that
the court is the better qualified to de
termine that question? The important con
sideration, however, ts that final decrees
and judgments shall be in fact final. The
Interest of society requires that they shall
bCit may be urged that Mr. Bryan has ref
erence only to preliminary injunctions and
orders and then only to those issued or
made in labor disputes. The answer is
first that Mr. Bryan expressly declares that
his proposition applies to all contempt pro
ceedings and he states that all litigants
are equally Interested in the question. But,
hew absurd it would be to provide one
method of determining contempt proceed
ings In industrial controversies and another
method in other suits. It is a fundamental
principle of our Government that all men
are equal before the law and hence they
must be subject to general rules and gen-
MrTaft has also pointed out that if Mr.
Bryan's proposition should be adopted a
witness or juror who should refuse to obey
a subpena or summons would be entitled
to a Jury trial in a proceeding against
him for contempt. It requires no elabora
tion to show how the administration of
justice would be retarded by such a law.
So I repeat that of all the many unwise
propositions Mr. Bryan has fathered, this,
in my Judgment, Is easily the most vicious
and dangerous.
Guaranty of Bank Deposits.
I have stated that Mr. Bryan has been
singularly unfortunate in the selection of
political issues. He was unhappy in mak
ing the silver question the paramount issue
In 1896. 'Imperialism" brought no better
returns In 1000- Government ownership, on
which he hoped to ride to victory in 1908,
did not survive the day of its birth. He
sow comes forward with a demand that the
Government shall guarantee bank depositors
against loss. The. demand is distinctly
Rn-nitin Tt oUgriv hAinn jts to the free
silver-Government ownership" family and
would be recognized anywhere as belonging
to Mr. Bryan's household. It Is entitled to
his guardianship, protection and care.
Still K seems hardl fair to limit the
Government's guaranty to bank deposits.
Why not have the Government provide a
guaranty fund for all indebtedness, publlo
and private, particularly private ? When
the sheep man deposits his wool in a ware
house, why not have the Government guar
antee its re-delivery or payment of its
value? When the farmer stores his grain
In a warehouse why not guarantee that?
But. says Mr. Bryan, when the Government
deposits money in a bank. It demands se
curity for Its repayment, as do the states
and municipalities, and therefore why
should not all depositors he secured? This
Is the argument advanced by Mr. Bryan in
his Kansas speech. It seems Incredible
that he himself did not detect its unsound
nesa All May Require Security.
If the Government, states and public cor
porations require security, it is only what
any depositor has a right to do. No one
is required to deposit money in a bank
wtlhout security for its repayment. But
of course the relation of the Government
and public corporations to their funds Is
that of a trustee. Tha money has been
produced by taxation for a specified pur
pose and cannot lawfully be devoted to any
other purpose, hence those In charge of it
are compelled to exercise exceptional cau
tion. But with what reason or logic can
It be contended that simply because the
Government, when it becomes a depositor,
requires the bank to secure the deposit,
therefore the Government should guarantee
all other depositors or require the bank to
secure them?
But tho principal objections to Mr. Bry
an's plan of guaranteeing depositors
against loss are, first, that it would offer
a premium on reckless banking; second. It
places the incompetent. Irresponsible and
negligent banker on a par with the com
petent, responsible, cautious banker, for
both will have the guaranty provided' by
the Government behind them. The depos
itor wijl not inquire how reliable or trust
worthy Is the bank, how much Us capital
and surplus, how long it has been estab
lished, for that he will deem immaterial
so long as his deposit is made secure by
the Government guaranty. He will simply
ask what Interest will be allowed or what
acommodatlons he can expect. The incom
petent or reckless banker will, of course,
pay him the higher Interest and extend him
the greater credit. But, says Mr. Bryan,
the maximum interest a bank may pay
will be fixed by law. Suppose it be. it will
not follow that it will, be safe banking at
all times to pay the maximum allowed by
law. But inducements to become exposi
tors In many cases will not be confined to
paying interest on deposits. The extent
to which credit will be allowed in open
accounts Is oftentimes a matter of great
importance to one who deposits with a
bank, and in many ways is it within the
power of a banker to extend favors to its
customers, and the more reckless the banker
the more the opportunities he will discover.
The tax which it is proposed to Impose on
banks to create the guaranty fund must be
paid alike by the competent and the incom
petent; the solvent and the insolvent ; the
honest and J.he dishonest. The competent
and honest banker requires no guaranty
either to secure deposits or to protect them.
Is it fair or just that he should be taxed
In order that one who has no established
reputation or character for honesty or com
petency can be maintained In business?
"Average Loss" Is Deceptive.
But, Mr. Bryan says, "the average an
nual loss to depositors In National hanks
during the last 40 years has been less than
one-tenth of 1 per cent of deposits," hence
he argues the tax necessary to establish
and maintain the required fund would not
be severe. But he overlooks the fact that
the actual loss is the amount of loss actual
ly sustained after the resources of the bank
have been realized on, which is usually
years after suspension. Now his plan pro
poses that as soon as a bank suspends the
depositors must be paid out of the guaranty
fund. Indeed any plan that contemplates
making them wait until the affairs of the
bank have been wound up will be no in
ducement to depositors; they will not want
to wait months or years for payment, for
certainty .of delay may be equivalent In
effect to a certainty of possible loss In pre
venting some from depositing or causing
them, when any slight flurry comes, to
withdraw their deposits.
Now, to provide a fund that will be suf
ficient at any time to pay off depositors
will require practically an amount that
would be a safe bank reserve. For in
stance, however so'vent a bank may be. in
order to conduct a safe business it must
keep on hand In actual cash -at least 30
per cent of its deposits. That does not
mean that It will b Insolvent with less.
It might be- perfectly solvent, have re
sources sufficient to pay its depositors and
stockholders in full, and yet have no cash
In its vaults and have to suspend. So an
average annual tax of one-tenth of 1 per
cent on deposits might be sufficient in a
period of years, say 40 or 50. to cover the
actual loss of depositors, but in the first
place that word average is a most impor
tant one In such statement, for it may be
that B0 per cent of the loss would occur
in one year and It would have to be met
at that time.
Again, as I have shown, the amount that
would have to be kept in ths guaranty fund
Is not Indicated at all by the average
actual annual loss in a long period of years,
for that represents the amount of loss
after converting the assets of falling banks
into cash and applying It finally on the
Indebtedness. But when It Is proposed to
pay depositors at once In full whenever
a bank shall suspend, the total amount of
the deposits must be available, without
regard to what the ultimate actual loss
may prove tor be. Hence it must be appar
ent that this guaranty fund would have
to be a very large amount. A Kansas City
bank failed last Winter owing its depositors,
as I remember, about $16,000,000. It was
thought to be solvent and that In the end
it would pay In full, but the amount the
guaranty ftind would, in such a case, have
to meet at once, would be $16,000,000. It
will readily be seen that when discussing
the amount of the tax necessary to main
tain such a fund. It is most misleading to
suggest the amount tf the average actual
annual loss In a period of years.
Present Law Is Better.
I have not time today to elaborate this
thought or carry it further, but you will
readily see that the requisite tax would be
a severe one. and the proposal Is, in my
judgment, utterly inequitable and imprac
ticable. I believe that some change should
be made in our banking system and very
largely along the lines of the legislation
we enacted last Winter. Had the law we
now have been In force last year. It would
have entirely relieved the money stringency
which then prevailed. Tbe bankers could
have deposited approved securities with the
Government and on them Government notes
would have issued. The banks, as a rule,
had ample resources, the difficulty was to
get money on them.
As the law now Is under the statute en
acted last session of Congress to meet such
emergencies, the bankers can deposit se
curities and have Government notes issued
to them thereon. On surrender of the
notes, the securities are to be returned.
Thus, ample money to meat an emergency
is provided, the Government is amply se
cured and no burdensome tax is levied.
While the amendment referred to does not
make the law in all respects as I would
have It, still It is far better than the Bryan
plan. In addition to the legislation of the
last session mentioned, we aiso created a
commission to recommend a complete plan
of revision of our banking laws. That com
mission is now at work and will doubtless
report at the coming session.
Tariff Revision.
In an interview some days ago, Mr. Bryan
said that tho Republican party by declar
ing for tariff revision had come around to
his platform for tariff reform. Of course
Mr. Bryan knows that the Republican pur
pose to revise the existing tariff schedules
is an entirely different proposition from his
so-called tariff ieform contention, which Is
in truth but an assault on the Republican
policy of protection. The Republican party
proposes to revise the present tariff sched
ules, but the principle of protection of
American products, industries and labor
will be kept constantly in view- Mr. Bryan
and his party propose to reform the tariff
by striking out all the protective features
and making It a tariff for revenue alone.
Now a tariff purely for revenue will In all
essential features be a free trade tariff. A
very low tariff will produce more revenue
than a high tariff, because It will stimulate
Importations of foreign products.
But I wish you to keep In mind that every
foreign produced article brought into this
country which goes into competition with
our own product serves to assist in circum
scribing the market for our own producers
and our own laborers. You cannot lower
the tariff to a purely revenue basis without
largely increasing importations, you can
not largely increase importations w ithout
crowding out our own products and curtail
ing production in this country. By so do
ing you will demoralize our own labor mar
ket. Are the American people willing to
CAMPAIGN
enter upon that policy? Are the working
men, the wage earners, willing to assist in
that? Assuming that Mr. Bryan will. If
elected, succeed In prohibiting the issuance
of injunctions In labor cases will that com
pensate our wage earners for ths closing
of our factories, the reduction of their
wages or entire loss of employment? Are
they willing to see our markets stocked
with the products of foreign labor In order
that the law regulating Injunctions may be
modified? Are they willing to return t
-the times of 1S93-ISP?
I agree with you that we do not want
cheap labor brought here to compete with
our own laboring people and hence I have
always voted to exclude them, but had we
not Just as well have them here In count
less hordes as to permit the products of
factories and farms in which they are em
ployed to come in under a low tariff to take
the place t-f our own products7 The Re
publican party announces no change of
policy In stating that It intends to revise
the tariff schedules. No one contends or
has ever contended that any given schedule
should be permanent. Conditions change;
that which is a wise and desirable tariff
duty on, a particular article today may a
year or a few years hence be unreasonably
high or low. The present schedules have
been In force over ten years and require
revision. But Republican revision will be
on protective as well as revenue lines. Dem
ocratic revision will be annihilation of protection-
and our products, our Industries and
our labor will be forced into ruinous compe
tition with the products of the world. The
result will be as It ever has been. Let
voters not deceive themselves.
, Panics.
But Mr. Bryan now says we cannot longer
.contend that panics do not come under Re
publican rule, for we had a panic last Fall.
It Is true that last year we had a slight
flurry In the money market, due to over
speculation and gambling in Wall street.
But what did It amount to after all? The
country at large was prosperous and It was
impossible long to Impede the regular flow
of the mighty current of cemmerce and in
dustry which. Republican pollctes had
created.' The panic was of short duration,
and as compared with a genuine panic re
sulting from Democratic policies, was as a
hummer xepnyr to a cyclone; as a passing
cloud that momentarily obscures the sun
is to the Inky blackness of a starless night.
Striking the firm walls of sound icepublican
policies, the disturbing waves speedily spent
their force and the mighty tide of prosperity
rolls steadily on. What is such a disturb
ance when compared with the panlo of
18C3, which continued for four long, terrible
years, throughout the entire term of the
last Democratic administration?
I think some changes should be mads in
our financial system, it Is true, but not along
any Mines that Mr. Bryan has ever advo
cated. Indeed the very fact that some re
vision of our banking aud financial laws is
required is a strong reason why Mr. Bryan
should not be elected. If there Is one-subject
on which he Is more particularly un
sound than on all others. It is finance.
The Candidates.
If there were no differences between the
parties, however, if both stood for the same
policies, even then there should be no doubt
in the minds of voters touching the choice
they should make as between Mr. Taft and
Mr. Bryan. In my Judgment Mr. Taft is
the most nearly ideal candidate for the
Presidency ever nominated by a political
party. I know this is saying much, but I
firmly believe It to be true. He has been
In public life many years. His character
seems perfect. His temperament, training,
ability and menial poise give every assur
ance that he will prove an Ideal chief ex
ecutive. He has been in public life many
years and has been right on all great ques
tions. He has been a success In every field
upon which he has entered. He Is recog
nized as one of our most profound lawyers.
As a Judge he held high rank. As presi
dent of the Philippine Commission and later
as Governor of the islands he impressed the
entire world with his administrative and
executive abilities. As Secretary of War he
has been recognized as the most powerful
member of a great Cabinet of a great Presi
dent. The greatest questions with which
the administration has had to deal have
been entiusted without reserve to him. The
Cuban question, the Panama Canal. th
Philippines and. Incidentally, at a -.most
critical moment, our relations with Japan
were entrusted to him. Grave and serioos
problems all, but handled with consummate
skill and extraordinary ability by this man.
who has never failed in any task assigned
him. ,.
And who and what is Mr. Bryan? Where
in has he ever proven a success? A fail
ure as a lawyer, a failure as a prophet, a
failure as a political leader. He has been
wrong on every great question of his time.
Morally honest and clean. I admit, but un
questionably without high mental integrity
or real statesmanship. He is simply a
bright opportunist, ready anrl willing to
shape his views and accommodate his con
victions on any subject In order to profit
politically by appealing to the momentary
prejudices or passions of the crowd.
1 Prominent Railroadman III.
- SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 26. W. I.
Sanborn, general agent in San Fran
cisco for the Burlington Route, is crit
ically ill with pneumonia, and little
hope for his recovery Is held out by
his physicians. He has been in a
comatose condition for the last ten
days.
In some Oriental countries vaccination
has been practiced for over 1000 years.
THAT NAME
Steinway
IT IS A SIGNIFICANT FACT
THAT IN EVEKY PART OF THE
GLOBE THE STEINWAY PIANO is
recognized as the standard by which
all other pianos are judged. The
STEINWAY is the model; all other
pianos are measured.by.it in com
parative degrees.
It is not the NAME which has made
the PIANO, it is the piano itself
which has made the name.
How often one hears the question,
asked, "What piano have you in your
home?"
If the answer is a "STEINWAY,"
no further questions are asked.
WHY?
because the STEINWAY is, and has
been for nearly a century, above crit
cism and above reproach.
Every great master of milsic the
world has known has paid his or her
tribute to the STEINWAY.
They have all done homage to it as
THE piano.
The people of Portland have shown
their appreciation of, the STEINWAY.
by making it the piano of their choice,
and the number of STEINWAY
pianos sold in this territory during
the past year has been phenomenal.
The STEINWAY is sold here at the
same price that it is sold for in New
York, plus the freight charges, and
you will be astonished to find out
what little difference there is in price
between the STEINWAY and an or
dinary piano.
SHERMAN, CLAY
8 COMPANY
Sixth and Morrison, Opposite Postof
fice. Pacific Coast Distributors for
Victor Talking Machines.